We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
A systematic review and meta-analysis of predictors of airway intervention in adult epiglottitis.
Laryngoscope 2020 Februrary
OBJECTIVE: Epiglottitis is typically considered a pediatric disease; however, there is growing evidence that the incidence of adult epiglottitis has changed since the introduction of the Haemophilus influenzae vaccine. The literature is composed of multiple small series with differing findings. To date, there has been no attempt to collaborate evidence on predictors of airway intervention in this disease.
METHODS: The population of interest was adults with a diagnosis of epiglottitis. The primary outcome in this review was incidence of airway intervention. A comprehensive literature search was conducted of the MEDLINE and Embase databases, and a separate random-effects model meta-analysis was undertaken for all outcome data. Moderator tests for comparison between prevaccine and postvaccine estimates were made, and absolute risk difference (RD) and relative risk (RR) calculations were made for all predictors of airway intervention.
RESULTS: Thirty studies and a total of 10,148 patients were finally included for meta-analysis. A significant decrease in airway intervention was seen post vaccine introduction introduction from 18.8% to 10.9% (P = 0.01). The presence of an abscess (RD 0.27, P = 0.04; RR 2.45, P < 0.001), stridor (RD 0.64, P < 0.001; RR 7.15, P < 0.001), or a history of diabetes mellitus (RD 0.11, P = 0.02; RR 2.15, P = 0.01) were associated with need for airway intervention.
CONCLUSION: In the postvaccine era, clinicians should expect to have to secure airways in 10.9% of cases. The presence of an epiglottic abscess, stridor, or a history of diabetes mellitus are the most reliable clinical features associated with need for airway intervention.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 130:465-473, 2020.
METHODS: The population of interest was adults with a diagnosis of epiglottitis. The primary outcome in this review was incidence of airway intervention. A comprehensive literature search was conducted of the MEDLINE and Embase databases, and a separate random-effects model meta-analysis was undertaken for all outcome data. Moderator tests for comparison between prevaccine and postvaccine estimates were made, and absolute risk difference (RD) and relative risk (RR) calculations were made for all predictors of airway intervention.
RESULTS: Thirty studies and a total of 10,148 patients were finally included for meta-analysis. A significant decrease in airway intervention was seen post vaccine introduction introduction from 18.8% to 10.9% (P = 0.01). The presence of an abscess (RD 0.27, P = 0.04; RR 2.45, P < 0.001), stridor (RD 0.64, P < 0.001; RR 7.15, P < 0.001), or a history of diabetes mellitus (RD 0.11, P = 0.02; RR 2.15, P = 0.01) were associated with need for airway intervention.
CONCLUSION: In the postvaccine era, clinicians should expect to have to secure airways in 10.9% of cases. The presence of an epiglottic abscess, stridor, or a history of diabetes mellitus are the most reliable clinical features associated with need for airway intervention.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 130:465-473, 2020.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app